# My deliberative speech on why people should be more tolerant towards smokers



## Some Dark Holler (Oct 29, 2007)

Hey folks, you may remember when I posted my epideictic speech on the joys of pipe smoking. Well for my final, a deliberative speech, I decided to fight against the machine once again, this time more forcefully. I took a hyperbolic and somewhat humorous approach to this. I wish I could give you guys a video of it, because my delivery was almost fanatical, and I could see some people in the class looking wide eyed at me while I gave it. So, without further adieu, for you viewing pleasure, my deliberative speech:

(Oh, and just ignore any typos and such, I fixed that when I spoke it)

First they came for the cigarette smokers, but said nothing because I didn't smoke cigarettes. Then they came for the cigar smokers, but I said nothing because I didn't smoke cigars. Then they came for the pipe smokers, but I said nothing because I didn't smoke a pipe. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to say anything.

Ladies and gentlemen, I was up here a few weeks back telling you about the joys of pipe smoking. We had some laughs, some enlightenment, and I think you got to know the pipe smoker a little better. But I come to you today to speak on something far more grave, something far more dire, something that affects all of us. Not since the McCarthy era has they been a more deliberate threat to our civil liberties. I, of course, am talking about the growing hatred and intolerance toward smokers of tobacco. I'm sure all my fellow smokers know the routine. Those of you who smoke cigarettes, and I do know there are quite a few of you, have surely experienced the forced cough, the jeers just loud enough for you to hear, the general intolerance of your life choices. If it were any other habit you wouldn't be attacked to such a degree, but not so with smoking.

Now, I'm sure all of you non-smokers are sitting there, already sneering at me, saying, "Who is this nut job and why does he think I should care if smokers are being threatened?" Well let me illuminate some things for you, nonbelievers. In 2003 a company in California enacted a new insurance policy that would allow potential employees to be discriminated against because they smoked. As rancid as that may be, I'm sure there are those of you who are still uncaring. It goes further, however. The true tragedy of this change in policy came when a man who had been working diligently there for years was fired because they found _nicotine_ in his drug test. Nothing else. No crack, no heroin, no illegal substances whatsoever, just nicotine. This man was fired because he smoked cigarettes. I'm sure there are those of you who are still skeptical of how this should matter to you. I want you to consider for a moment to consider yourself in his place. Imagine if you had been fired with no severance because you had been doing something completely legal in your private life. Last I checked this was America, not Nazi Germany. If that isn't an encroachment on our rights as Americans I don't know what is. This is just the first step, however. There is an effort going on as I stand before you and speak to make it so a single instance of someone smoking in a movie would warrant an R rating. It doesn't seem like much, but it is another step. They're all just another step. Each small step moves closer and closer toward an outright obliteration of our freedom to smoke. We arrive at college, free of our parents, and suddenly something new is opened up to us. We're 18 and can legally smoke. Ahh, sweet freedom! How much it means that the government now thinks we should be allowed to make a choice for ourselves. Something curious occurs, however. They say we can smoke, but then make it impossible to smoke anywhere. We can't smoke inside, we can't smoke within 100 feet of _any _building, we can't smoke in parks. There is a bill in the works that would make it illegal to smoke in our own cars. What's next? Shall they make it illegal to smoke in our own goddamn homes! And after that? What freedom shall they snatch from us next? Our freedom to eat fried foods? That's just as bad for our health. Our freedom to drink coffee? That's also a drug. Our freedom to drive cars? That's creates far more air pollution than tobacco smoke. So tell me, smokers and non-smokers alike, when do say, "Enough!"? When will we put our foot down and stop this discrimination against smokers for the sake of all of us?

The way things are going these days not soon enough. People continue to complain about smokers even as our rights are sapped repeatedly. "Why should I have to smell your smoke?" They ask. "Why should I have to smell the fumes from your car?" I answer. "You could just as easily not smoke", they retort. "You could just as easily bike or use public transportation", I respond. "Healthcare is moving towards socialization, why should my tax dollars be used to pay for something you do to yourself?" I ask them, "Why should my tax dollars be used to pay for people who damage their bodies eating fast food, or damage their livers when they drink?" Shall we make alcohol illegal? That worked out so well the first time.

Choice seems to be the most important part of this. It's the smoker's choice that they smoke. It's their choice that they are hurting themselves. But isn't that what America was built on? The freedom to choose? I think it's insane that we are so ready to strip the rights of a group of people just because they do something we don't agree with. Voltaire once said, "I may not like the smell of your cigarette, but I'll defend to the death your right to smoke it!" I'm paraphrasing here. But the point still stands, damnit! We are forsaking our forefathers with this behavior! America is the land of freedom and choice. For hundreds of years we have based ourselves on the idea that no man should be discriminated against because of his life choices if its in the bounds of legality. But the second someone lights up a Camel Filter there is an uproarious outcry! "I don't like what he is doing, he shouldn't be allowed to do it!" There are many who would outright outlaw smoking in the country. Let me tell you who else wants to ban smoking: Communists. And don't you think I'm kidding for a second! There is talk right now in China of a nation-wide ban on smoking. Do you see what we've come to? I know I sure as hell don't want to live in the United Soviet States of America! The moment we ban smoking is the moment when the Reds smile their cruel, devious smiles, for they know we're doing ourselves in! This great intolerance towards smokers is the most self destructive thing America has done since smooth jazz became popular. We all remember that dark time when Kenny G rose to prominence; do not let us fall into another spiral like that.

But I know there are those of you who are hard won, and would still support a smoking ban. Well let me remind of a period in America when the powers that be thought it would be a good idea to ban another substance: Alcohol. Have we forgotten prohibition so quickly? Have we forgotten the roaring twenties? Oh yes, what a fun time that was! Crazy jazz clubs, flappers, neat looking hats. But the 20's were also a dark time. Those crazy jazz musicians and flappers were running on bootleg booze, bought from the most powerful drug lords in American history. Speakeasies sprung up all over the place, fueled by crime barons like Al Capone. Violence consumed the cities,' shine runners raced across state borders carrying barrels of black market booze, men where mowed down in the streets! Do you honestly believe it would be any different if tobacco was made illegal? The economy would crumble, particularly in states like North Carolina, underground smoking lounges would pop up all over this great land, bootleg tobacco barons would overshadow all the smack dealers that plague street corners now. Violence would rise, the police force would be spread thin, government funding, your tax dollars, would be used to bolster special anti-tobacco law enforcement squads. The country would fall into a violent and terrible chaos!

Ladies, gentlemen, _Americans_, I don't think I am asking too much when I say, "Please, be a little more tolerant toward you smoking brethren." Our ancestors came to America to escape prejudice and threat to their freedoms. Who are we to tread on our relatives wishes? Who are we to tread on the fabric of America? Tolerance towards smokers is beneficial to all of us, whether we choose to use tobacco or not. If we don't resist this anti-smoking, nay, anti-freedom movement, we will all be forced down a terrible path. A path to ruin. A path to destruction. A path to everything that this nation stands against! If you don't like the smoke, then walk away. But for god sakes don't bat that cigarette from your fellow man's hand. We are on the cusp of a new dawn. We can either sit back or allow this slow erosion of civil liberties overtake us, or we can stand up and fight it! Brother with brother! American with American! Smoker with non-smoker! See through the haze of deception, my friends, look to the heart of the issue! This is not just a fight for whether someone can puff on their pipe, sip on their stoagie, or suck on their cigarette, this is a fight for all that we hold dear! This is a fight for American values! This is a fight for _FREEDOM!_


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

excellent work.


----------



## rharris (Jan 6, 2006)

Well said. If you dont mind my asking, how was your speech recieved?


----------



## Some Dark Holler (Oct 29, 2007)

It went pretty well. I got a 92 on it, and I'm certainly happy with an A. I would've gotten a better grade but I ran over the time limit.


----------



## Silky01 (Jul 16, 2007)

You did go a little further than your first. I do like that fact that you hit home a few points that hit most Americans, namely fatty foods and alcohol, in addition to the car. Furthermore, I really like that you brought the liberty that America was founded upon, and what happened during prohibition. I agree with you that we have forgotten what prohibition was like, and the money that was spent trying to deter drinking. More money will be spent trying to deter smoking (as drugs are now), wasting more money that the government will no longer be bringing in from tobacco taxes. 

It was good that you brought in the point of the student snickering, rolling their eyes, etc. Call them out and they will listen (If you build it, he will come) (sorry, just watched a Kevin Costner movie).

Good job overall, good read. I would have liked to have heard your enthusiasm during the presentation.


----------



## weetone (Oct 3, 2007)

Not bad, I like it a lot. 

It'll be interesting to see how smoking plays out in America, because, as you move towards medicare (really, it's rather inevitable I think) the "I don't want to pay for so and so's poor decisions" mentality will come into play full force. Since we already have universal healthcare, and smoking is still legal, this argument (while still a favourite) has definitely lost some of its clout. The impact it will have on future legislation in the US will be interesting to see.

Suffice it to say, stock up now!


----------



## Silky01 (Jul 16, 2007)

Oh, by the way; for some numbers on the healthcare (read this somewhere recently), non-smoker's shouldn't complain about smoker's costing them more money. By the way of the numbers, since non-smoker's "generally" live-longer, their total life-time health care costs are much more than those who die earlier (ie, smokers). I think the numbers worked out to be around 470K to 380K or something like that.


----------



## weetone (Oct 3, 2007)

That wouldn't surprise me. Not to mention us smokers have to pay for all the work done on people who exercise too much and damage joints/tendons/ligaments...that's my one complaint!


----------



## call-of-the-weird (Jun 4, 2008)

Good call! pp


----------



## Arizona (Jul 19, 2007)

Well said and well thought out...


----------



## DubintheDam (Jun 5, 2007)

"Get with the program"....I had an American friend once ask me "am I an alcoholic?"....I replied, "no of course not Jim, you drink two or three cans of that shit lite beer each night and that wouldn't even get a cat drunk". But he was being so pressured to attend a program for alcoholism because he was stopped by police whilst driving after having one lite beer...he wasn't even over the limit!

There is a huge pressure to "Get with the program" in the states, whatever the program is, it often defies logic and is almost fanatical for it's own sake. 

For me I'm all for a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and public buildings, I'm however against a ban in outdoor spaces...that said with what we currently understand of global warming; a 'complete' ban on all cars/motor bikes/trucks over the entire planet would be 'too little too late'. I would gladly support a total ban on all vehicles tomorrow (excluding public transport)...and..I do not consider this statement in any way excessive or fanatical. But I know nobody's going to "get with that program", despite it's needed urgency and supporting science. Big problems need big answers...the smoking ban is but a mere 'smoke screen'.


----------



## parris001 (Mar 29, 2008)

SDH, that was some speech. I may have been a little late discovering it and it may have been a while since you were reminded, but that was a great job. What is your age. I'm hoping you're my kids age. We need smart, actually _THINKING _young Americans. Bravo!


----------



## replicant_argent (May 13, 2006)

DubintheDam said:


> "Get with the program"....I had an American friend once ask me "am I an alcoholic?"....I replied, "no of course not Jim, you drink two or three cans of that shit lite beer each night and that wouldn't even get a cat drunk". But he was being so pressured to attend a program for alcoholism because he was stopped by police whilst driving after having one lite beer...he wasn't even over the limit!
> 
> There is a huge pressure to "Get with the program" in the states, whatever the program is, it often defies logic and is almost fanatical for it's own sake.
> 
> For me* I'm all for a smoking ban in bars, restaurants* and public buildings, I'm however against a ban in outdoor spaces...that said *with what we currently understand of global warming*; *a 'complete' ban on all cars/motor bikes/trucks over the entire planet would be 'too little too late'.* *I would gladly support a total ban on all vehicles tomorrow* (excluding public transport)...and..*I do not consider this statement in any way excessive or fanatical.* But I know nobody's going to "get with that program", despite it's needed urgency and supporting science. Big problems need big answers...*the smoking ban is but a mere 'smoke screen'.*


Really?

It looks like you contradict yourself in the last bolded.

Did I miss your tongue in your cheek? I apologize if I did, but I wonder how you actually rationalize those bolded thoughts, and I do see that you live in the Netherlands. I think there must be a severe cultural difference between what you believe and what I do, unless I missed something completely.


----------



## Blaylock-cl (Apr 28, 2006)

DD:* "I'm all for a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and public buildings..."*

Risks from secondary smoke? OK, I accept that. Personally, I don't want to eat, shop, do business, or work in smoke filled environments.

DD: *"I'm however against a ban in outdoor spaces..."*

I agree with this too. It's definitely not the biggest problem contributing to our 'global" difficulties. Though I'm not ready to give up my car for a bike yet! 

DD: *"the smoking ban is but a mere 'smoke screen'."*

I think advocating an outdoor ban is extreme.

Just my :2


----------



## NCRadioMan (Feb 28, 2005)

Blaylock said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> DD:* "I'm all for a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and public buildings..."*
> 
> Risks from secondary smoke? OK, I accept that. Personally, I don't want to eat, shop, do business, or work in smoke filled environments.


That's why we have freedom and liberty to go elsewhere. It should up to the owner, not the damn govt. forcing them to do it.

Give an inch.........................then your screwed.

:2


----------



## Infin1ty (May 12, 2007)

I really enjoyed the speech, and I thought you made some excellent points. I for one can you tell you right now that if cigarettes became illegal I would never quit.


----------



## Infin1ty (May 12, 2007)

DubintheDam said:


> "Get with the program"....I had an American friend once ask me "am I an alcoholic?"....I replied, "no of course not Jim, you drink two or three cans of that shit lite beer each night and that wouldn't even get a cat drunk". But he was being so pressured to attend a program for alcoholism because he was stopped by police whilst driving after having one lite beer...he wasn't even over the limit!
> 
> There is a huge pressure to "Get with the program" in the states, whatever the program is, it often defies logic and is almost fanatical for it's own sake.
> 
> For me I'm all for a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and public buildings, I'm however against a ban in outdoor spaces...that said with what we currently understand of global warming; a 'complete' ban on all cars/motor bikes/trucks over the entire planet would be 'too little too late'. I would gladly support a total ban on all vehicles tomorrow (excluding public transport)...and..I do not consider this statement in any way excessive or fanatical. But I know nobody's going to "get with that program", despite it's needed urgency and supporting science. Big problems need big answers...the smoking ban is but a mere 'smoke screen'.


I have to ask, why such harsh views on global warming. Yes there is some scientist who believe that we are the cause of it, but the vast majority believe that it is a naturally occurring process and nothing we do is going to change it. Not just did that, did you know that the year 2007, was the coldest year in past 50 years, so cold that it completely threw off the theory of Global Warming.

I think a complete ban on all non public transport vehicles would be complete BS.

Anyways, on to the tobacco issue. I completely agree with that was stated in the post above me (not the one I'm quoting) and that is that it should be up to the owners of an establishment on whether or not you can smoke, if you allow the government to make decisions like that for you, then there is no point in us as humans to even have free will, because at that point, it is completely stripped away from us.


----------



## DubintheDam (Jun 5, 2007)

Just to clear up any confusions here...I support a smoking ban in public buildings (even though I'm a smoker). I do not support a ban in outdoor (parks, sidewalk etc) public places which is, I believe being suggested in some states in the USA. 

Lastly I thinks motor fumes are a much bigger issue for both individuals health and the health of the planet. I do also feel we need drastic measure's to be taken in order to deal with global warming...I think a complete ban on the use of fossil fuels for anything other than public transport or public services would be a sensible thing to do...I also know this will never happen...so god help planet earth. As for contradicting myself...I make a point of doing it all the time.


----------



## Samsonite (Jun 6, 2008)

I think you made a good speech with many good points. There are two forms of discrimination currently a-okay by 90% of Americans, and those are obesity and smoking. There should either be no discrimination (bad idea) or allow discrimination and let the government stay out of it (good idea). People should not be forced to be compassionate of anyone, but our rights should still stay in tact. Tobacco is a legal substance and just because someone is annoyed by it, then too bad. They can move away. There's no right for someone not to be offended, but there is every right to offend.

As for the global warming thing, our cars, trucks, motorcycles, fossil fuels aren't doing anything worse to the planet than chewing bubble gum. In fact, many scientists and botanists agree that our greenhouse emissions are currently helping the planet, and there's a study that supports if we suddenly stopped emitting our gases, the environment would get much worse at a much more rapid pace.

Freedom, my friends, is what everything boils down to. They take away our right to smoke and then they take away our right to eat what we like. It was once said that too many choices (like to smoke or not to smoke) make people unhappy. I say I'd rather be free and unhappy than happy and controlled.

:2


----------



## tnip23 (Oct 31, 2006)

DubintheDam said:


> Just to clear up any confusions here...I support a smoking ban in public buildings (even though I'm a smoker). I do not support a ban in outdoor (parks, sidewalk etc) public places which is, I believe being suggested in some states in the USA.
> 
> Lastly I thinks motor fumes are a much bigger issue for both individuals health and the health of the planet. I do also feel we need drastic measure's to be taken in order to deal with global warming...I think a complete ban on the use of fossil fuels for anything other than public transport or public services would be a sensible thing to do...I also know this will never happen...so god help planet earth. As for contradicting myself...I make a point of doing it all the time.


you seem to dismiss property owner's rights all to easily when you call for a ban in all public places. also, as far as a ban on all fossil fuels except for public services, obviously you live in a situation where that somehow makes sense. for those of us who live in a large country, in a rural area, separate by choice from the urban centers that we view as workplaces, not living spaces, we need our cars and our fossil fuels. IMHO the problem isn't a lack of fossil fuels, but a lack of the political will to go get them. as far as the man-made global warming hypothesis, it is politically and financally driven hogwash. i respect you as a fellow BOTL, but your viewpoints lack respect for individual rights and reek too much of socialism for my american soul.


----------



## DubintheDam (Jun 5, 2007)

I don't wish to stir up a heated debate on global warming....or on personal liberties/freedoms. To keep the debate on topic...I do consider motor fumes more dangerous to people's health than tobacco smoke. That is my opinion.

I do not blame anyone for driving a car, even a gas guzzeling SUV. I do however blame govenments around the world for not doing MORE in recent decades to improve and promote the use of public transport and fuel efficient cars.

I also go with the Al Gore line of thought on global warming and shock horror!... I am in principle a socialist democrat who believes in a free market economy. 

To come back to the smoking ban which will also come into place here on July 1st. As 70% of people don't smoke and generally don't want smoking in public buildings or restaurants...and...as science does suggest it is possible to get cancer from passive smoking...I support the ban and consider this the responsible thing to do even as a smoker myself.

As for personal freedoms...they come with both personal, social and global responsibilities.


----------



## parris001 (Mar 29, 2008)

DubintheDam said:


> I also go with the Al Gore line of thought on global warming and shock horror!... I am in principle a socialist democrat who believes in a free market economy.


Dub, I respect you greatly although our political opinions couldn't differ any more . I only responded to this with a quote and to make the point that I think that, like you, Gore is a Socialist Democrat. I just wish everyone else realized what he is..........


----------



## Al_Samson (May 16, 2008)

that was impressive, i enjoyed it. u made some excellent points. i also believe that instead of banning something like tobacco the government needs to realize that it is our responsibility as humans to use moderation, without moderation the world would not be so good a place.


----------



## Infin1ty (May 12, 2007)

With Tobacco, its a bit tough to use moderation, especially if your a cigarette smoker. Regardless there are a lot of areas that we as humans could use to learn moderation, but I do not believe that tobacco is one of them, it is a naturally occurring plant, in which there is not even a slight sign for a shortage.


----------



## tnip23 (Oct 31, 2006)

DubintheDam said:


> I don't wish to stir up a heated debate on global warming....or on personal liberties/freedoms. To keep the debate on topic...I do consider motor fumes more dangerous to people's health than tobacco smoke. That is my opinion.
> 
> I do not blame anyone for driving a car, even a gas guzzeling SUV. I do however blame govenments around the world for not doing MORE in recent decades to improve and promote the use of public transport and fuel efficient cars.
> 
> ...


dubin, i agree that motor fumes are a more dangerous substance than tobacco smoke, and from there and the fact that we both enjoy tobacco, we part ways. obviously, as a social democrat you view gov't as part of the solution to problems, i view them as the problem.

i want my gov't to protect me from foreign invaders and internal crimnals, take care of the infrastructure, and leave me the hell alone. 
the single most important right, other than free speech, is the right to do with your property as you wish.

the science on second hand smoke and man made global warming is dubious at best. you choose to err on the side of the politically motivated scientists and the gov't bureaucrats, i choose the side of the rugged individualist (who is also generally the most genrerous when it comes to supporting his fellow man through his charity.) as well as everyone else out here in the unwashed masses who don't want to share their ride to work with a couple dozen strangers or participate in any other activity that makes no difference whatsoever to the fate of our earth or environment (carbon credits, recycling products that use more energy to recycle than dispose of et. al.) other than to line the pockets and stroke the egos of algore, obama, and the like.

i am all for doing my part to make this a better world for us all. i donate to charities, i don't litter, i am using compact fluorescent bulbs, yet i am constantly branded as "not green enough" by those who wish to impose their political environmentalism by keeping us from drilling in the vast artic wasteland that is ANWR, calling for increased restrictions on every company that isn't based in china or a 3rd world country, and constantly wanting to take more of my money through taxes, only to restrict more of my freedoms through things like smoking bans.

This isn't a direct shot at you dubin, but i only wish i could lay back in amsterdam, smoke some good legal herb, lay down with a top shelf lady, and forget that the whole world including my wonderful country is creeping towards socialism, something that you embrace and i fear. we should all care for our fellow man, it should be something we do by choice however, not by gov't imposed edict. smoke a good one and have a nice day.

p.s. as always apologies for the run on sentences and lack of capitalization.


----------

